Suppose John McCain had been in the White House in October 1962, facing one of the great tests of the modern presidency. If so, we might remember that period not as "the Cuban missile crisis" but as "World War III."
So begins a devastating piece by Nicholas Kristof in today's New York Times. It is entitled Impulsive, Impetuous, Impatient, which might be as good a summation of John McCain as I have yet seen. While acknowledging the effort McCain has put into thinking about foreign policy, Kristof notes
But it’s equally clear that in recent years Mr. McCain has become impish cubed — impulsive, impetuous and impatient — and those are perilous qualities in a commander in chief.
impish cubed - and that is certainly not a compliment.
John McCain is temperamentally unsuited to be president at any time, and that is even more true in a time of crises: if anything has become evident in recent weeks it is how UNSTEADY McCain is in the midst of turmoil.
Kristof's column is full of killer lines, which is not his normal style of writing, and thus perhaps why this column grabbed my attention.
Consider:
Judging from Mr. McCain’s own positions, he might well revive a cold war with Russia and could start a hot war with Iran or North Korea. In those three hot spots, Mr. McCain could constitute a dangerous gamble for this country
a dangerous gamble - I wonder if Kristof knew that today would see a front-page story on McCain's affiliation with the gambling industry, a story that repeats his own propensity for - or should we say addiction to - playing high-stakes craps?
Or consider these lines:
So if Iran continues its policies as most expect, we might well find ourselves under a McCain presidency headed toward our third war with a Muslim country. The result would be an Iranian nationalist backlash that would cement ayatollahs in place, as well as $200-a-barrel oil, open season on Americans in Iraq, and global fury at American unilateralism.
Or perhaps the line that immediately follows:
North Korea is one of the Bush administration’s greatest failures, and Mr. McCain seems intent on making it worse.
Perhaps it is because Kristof has spent so much time writing about issues overseas that he is so offended by the positions McCain espoused in the debate. Although had he been paying attention, the rhetoric spouted in the debate differed from McCain's previous statements only in how he attempted to frame his words in the context of "proving" Obama to be weak and unprepared. Instead, my perception is that for those not viewing the debate through partisan blinders or the traditional lenses acceptable to the punditocracy of the Village, McCain's statements made him even more scary than they currently view Bush, perhaps even in a league with The Creature From the Undisclosed Location, aka Vice-President Cheney. And the selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate even more clearly demonstrates McCain's contempt for what others might think.
A slight detour - I watched the debate on CNN: that was the channel of choice at the heavily Democratic location at which I parked myself. And CNN offered the running ratings of a dial group, with separate lines for Republicans, Independents and Democrats. And the steepest drop - a precipitious one - during the entire debate occurred the one time McCain proudly referenced his selection of his electoral partner.
In watching some talking heads tonight, I encountered further dismissing of McCain by those on the right. Charles Krauthammer dissed McCain noting that his only solution to anything - even global warming - was to cut government spending. And everyone seemed to want to comment on McCain's unwillingness or inability to look at Obama.
Kristof does not address such matters. His concern is much more on the implications for this nation and the world of McCain's approach to matters international. And Kristof is not a happy camper. He closes his column as follows:
All in all, it’s astonishing that Mr. McCain seems determined to return to Mr. Bush’s first-term policies that have been utterly discredited even within the administration.
more Bush than Bush - even if his running mate does not understand what the Bush doctrine is.
I saw a positive reaction in the dial lines when Obama talked about restoring America's image around the world. And certainly a continuation of Bush foreign policy, especially an intensified version of same, would be a disaster hard to contemplate: imagine if you can America being even more despised than it currently is. That is what McCain offers.
Foreign policy was supposed to be McCain's strong suit. Despite what many talking heads (who have been so wrong about this cycle) offered about the debate basically being a draw, I do not think so. I believe McCain damaged himself with his attempts to belittle Obama. I also believe that Obama more than met any minimum test of acceptability on foreign policy.
In fact, he met three tough tests. He demonstrated that he can be tough enough, especially when he counterpunched: think about the bracelets, remember the three-fold "You were wrong" lines. He demonstrated understanding of and competence in matters of security and international relations. And on the most important test - whom do you want coming into your living room for the next four years - I think he blew McCain away.
What I think matters little. And normally what the punditocracy offers matters little more, as most voters do not read the op ed columns.
But when people with expertise in a subject offer criticism, it might indicate something deeper is happening. And when one not noted for his partisanship - as is certainly an apt description of Kristof - is as harsh (for him) as this column is, it may be a sign that the train is leaving the station, that McCain has lost his base with the press, and that he has undercut his primary argument for electing him: that he offers unparalleled experience and judgment on the crucial matters of national security.
He may have experience, but so does the man who keeps trying to knock down a brick wall with headbutts while not wearing a helmet, because he is too stubborn and self-willed to see that five feet to the right is an open door. That's one description I think apt for McCain.
Or should we say McSame - or even McBush - given with what Kristof ends. And that is worth repeating again, not just hear, but in reminding others of what is at stake:
Judging from Mr. McCain’s own positions, on foreign policy he could well end up more Bush than Bush.
And unfortunately, in a McCain administration there will be no hope of saying this:
Peace.